AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 represent two distinct eras of AMD’s professional graphics lineup. The W7900 is a current-generation workstation powerhouse built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Vega 48 is an older, end-of-life mobile integrated GPU from the GCN 5.0 era. The database shows a massive performance gulf between them, driven by fundamental differences in process node, memory subsystem, and compute resources. This analysis breaks down the recorded data across architecture, benchmarks, and specifications.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 in OpenCL?

A: The W7900 scores 84,379 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Vega 48 scores 53,757. That is a 57% advantage for the W7900.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The biggest delta is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W7900 scores 137,070 versus 57,653 for the Vega 48, a 137.7% lead.

Q: Does the older Vega 48 have any benchmark wins over the W7900?

A: No. The head-to-head data records two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), and the W7900 wins both. The Vega 48 has zero wins.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2. The W7900’s capacity is six times larger.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The W7900, built on a 5 nm process, packs 109.1M transistors per mm². The Vega 48, on a 14 nm process, has 25.3M per mm².

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is listed as Active, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip with the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation. The Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip with the older GCN 5.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Mac series.

The process node is a major divider. The W7900 is fabricated by TSMC at 5 nm, while the Vega 48 uses GlobalFoundries at 14 nm. This translates to a dramatic difference in transistor counts: the W7900 has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a density of 109.1M per mm². The Vega 48 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a density of 25.3M per mm². The newer process allows the W7900 to pack over four times the transistors into a similar die area.

Compute resources differ significantly. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 192 render output units. It also includes 96 ray tracing cores. The Vega 48 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The W7900’s raw throughput is far higher: pixel rate is 479.0 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 958.1 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 61.32 TFLOPS for the W7900 versus 7.373 TFLOPS for the Vega 48. FP16 performance is also starkly different: the W7900 achieves 61.32 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Vega 48 reaches 14.75 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, which provides 402.4 GB/s. Despite the wider bus on the Vega 48, the W7900’s higher memory clocks and larger capacity result in more than double the bandwidth.

API support also differs. The W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega 48 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W7900’s newer feature set includes hardware ray tracing support, which the Vega 48 lacks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two Geekbench tests. In OpenCL, the W7900 scores 84,379 against the Vega 48’s 53,757. That is a 57% advantage. This gap reflects the combined effect of the newer architecture, higher shading unit count, and faster memory subsystem.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger separation. The W7900 posts 137,070, while the Vega 48 manages 57,653. The delta here is 137.7%, meaning the W7900 is more than twice as fast in this workload. The Vulkan advantage is partly due to the W7900’s modern driver and hardware features that better utilize the API’s low-level access.

The overall average benchmark scores confirm the trend. The W7900 has an average benchmark score of 110,725, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Vega 48’s average is 60,140, which sits in the 88th percentile. While both are above the median, the W7900 is nearly twice the average score of the Vega 48.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the W7900 sits between the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (avg score 109,617, 1% slower) and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (avg score 113,944, 2.8% faster). The Vega 48, by contrast, is closely matched with the Intel Arc Pro A60 (avg score 60,326, 0.3% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (avg score 60,347, 0.3% slower). This is a notable context: the Vega 48’s average score is in the same range as a consumer flagship, but that is because the database’s average combines its OpenCL and Vulkan results with a Metal score of 69,010, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards. The W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Vega 48 uses Vega 10 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Transistor count is 57,700 million versus 12,500 million, and die size is 529 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density is 109.1M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm².

Clock speeds: the W7900 has a base clock of 1760 MHz and a boost clock of 2495 MHz, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Vega 48 has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective).

Memory: 48 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 96 RT cores for the W7900. The Vega 48 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no RT cores.

Pixel rate: 479.0 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 958.1 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 61.32 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS. FP16: 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specs: the W7900 has a TDP of 295 W, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, and is a triple-slot card measuring 280 mm in length. The Vega 48 has no TDP listed, no PSU suggestion, no power connectors (listed as None), and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dimensions recorded.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7900 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Vega 48. Display outputs: the W7900 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the Vega 48 is listed as Portable Device Dependent.

Release and status: the W7900 launched on May 25, 2023, with a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, and is Active. The Vega 48 launched on March 18, 2019, with no MSRP recorded, and is End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins in every measurable category in the database. It dominates compute workloads, as shown by its 57% OpenCL lead and 137.7% Vulkan lead. In scenarios demanding high FP32 throughput, the W7900’s 61.32 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS means it is roughly eight times faster in raw compute. For memory-intensive tasks like rendering large scenes or training neural networks, the W7900’s 48 GB capacity and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a clear advantage over the Vega 48’s 8 GB and 402.4 GB/s.

The W7900 also wins on architectural modernity. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, includes hardware ray tracing cores, and uses a PCIe 4.0 interface. These features make it suitable for current-generation professional workloads, including real-time ray tracing and advanced visualization. Its active production status and recent release date (May 2023) mean it remains a viable purchase for new systems.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. However, its profile suggests it was designed for specific mobile or integrated applications, given its IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Its HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus delivers 402.4 GB/s, which is respectable for its era, but the 8 GB capacity is a limiting factor. The Vega 48’s FP16 performance of 14.75 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio may offer some efficiency in mixed-precision workloads, but its FP32 is severely constrained.

In practical terms, the W7900 is the clear choice for any heavy workstation task: large-scale rendering, scientific simulation, or high-resolution video processing. The Vega 48, being end-of-life and with no active support, is only relevant in legacy systems or embedded contexts where its low power draw (no external connectors) and integrated form factor are acceptable. The data leaves no ambiguity: the W7900 outperforms the Vega 48 by a wide margin in every recorded test, with the Vulkan gap exceeding double the score.